So what we'e seeing here is an attempted duplication and implementation of a private API?

In that case I can also understand. If it's Apple's baby and a key feature of their OS, then they're not going to allow someone else to attempt to reproduce it and implement it in ways Apple did not intend.

Is this what we have here?

The gesture is not a private API, but it seems the animation might be.

Why should a developer think that the user is only allowed to touch their app in the ways Apple approves? It is like saying only Apple apps can use the Z key, or press Alt-X, or whatever. It is a touch interface. INFINITE possibilities. Are the games going to have the same restrictions, or do they get to do anything?

The bottom line is there are no rules. Apple makes them up as they go along, and you better be a mediocre little doggy or else.

Angry much? Bottom line, because it is Apple's platform, and they make the rules. Like it or not. And maybe for UI uniformity.

Which is besides the point. I was not defending or condemning either side. I was saying that if the developers had to go out of their way to duplicate a function, then they had to have some inkling that there might be a problem.

Everyone who's throwing mud at the developer for using private APIs to do a basic gesture is speculating way beyond their knowledge - there is too much of that in our society as it is.

Perhaps, but these guys in particular did not use a private API.

And, no, I didn't make any assumptions. What I meant was don't jump on the "mud-slinging" bandwagon, there is no need. There are better ways to help the community as a whole, than to say parts of said community are idiots.

Come of Gazoobee, get over it. You received a ban (and humorously created this alt to defend your other alt-sort of like bidding on you own auction, no?), but it doesn't seem you learned from it. (Did you think I was banned? I didn't call anyone names, that was you, remember?...I should change my sig to "12 years and no bans"...could you?).

Do I say anything positive about Apple? Often. But I will not be quiet when their actions are out of line. I hold them to a higher standard. I find it unfortunate that some will apologize or defend the actions, regardless of what they are.

Take a breath and calm down. You don't want to lose your temper and get another alt banned.

I don't play alts. I have never played two different people on this forum and I take that as the personal attack you intended it to be.

Do me a favour. Patenting a gesture is obscene. Maybe I'll patent the finger and make some money.

I'm offended that any company thinks they can patent the use of a gesture when they advocate multitouch devices. Apple gets gestures but others can just tap tap tap. Who owns the patents on mouse up and mouse down? They must be the richest people in the world.

Stop giving Apple a pass just because you're a fan boy. I love AAPL too but they are showing and proving that they have and exercise way too much control during the app submission process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone

I believe Apple has applied for a patent on Pinch gesture (not sure about whether it was granted or not). Even though Droid uses it, Apple doesn't seem to be ready to take on that battle just yet. It is easy enough to reject an App that uses Apple patented technology. That pinch / zoom patent will need to be tested in court at some point.

Obviously more to their rejection than "pinch to expand" on a photo app, because I just used that gesture on Photogene, which is not an Apple app. I do agree that Apple should allow all apps to use the gestures.

Could have something to do with this app's connection to Picasa and Google. Who knows.

It's inappropriate to make a thread more about a person, than it is about their posts, but I was referring to Tulkas' posts as a group and his debating style on this forum as a whole.

I certainly don't want to indicate that his style is down to a personality flaw or a personal failing, but on the whole, I find the content of his posts to be almost entirely negative and full of something close to hatred for pretty much everything and everyone. While I'm sure it's inaccurate, the impression sometimes given by his posts is that of a tireless bully, bashing his way through the forum, heedless of the contributions of anyone but himself to the debate. Again, such behaviour would be very contra-productive to the debate itself, so I can't believe it's true no matter how much it seems that way. I mean why would anyone want to ruin the debate just for their own personal aggrandising? That would just be silly.

At times his posts have given me the impression that he actually enjoys attacking people. This also can't be true of course, because what kind of a monster would enjoy doing that day after day? We are all here for reasoned debate after all.

Moreover, I find his arguments are very pedantic, attacking over and over again on the same issue until the other person relents more out of exhaustion, than because he actually has a point. Needless to say this is a type of posting that rarely adds to the debate and mostly just obfuscates the real issues, so again maybe it just *seems* that way. I find it hard to believe that someone would actively try and derail the debate for their own petty personal reasons.

While Tulkas rarely crosses the line into a (technical) personal attack, I do find that most every post he makes is deeply personal and directed more at the other poster, or the other organisation that's under discussion (in this case Apple), rather than being directed at the actual issue at hand. When you combine that with the (apparent) negativity, it's easy to see how his posts can come across more as run-of-the-mill insults than they do as the technical arguments he apparently thinks they are. Likely this is just a mistaken impression though as why would anyone engage in that kind of self-defeating behaviour? What's the point in winning if you only win on style and by tiring out your opponents instead of on the facts being debated?

Overall I just this forum should be about rational debate, and when people make it personal, and more about "winning" as opposed to being right, we all suffer.

I shouldn't bother replying to your attacks anymore, but sometimes it is necessary.

Mr. Pot please meet Mr. Kettle. You have done a great jobs of projecting your posting habits onto me. Really the only edit required is that part about not crossing into personal attacks. You do so often and this resulted in your last ban. Looking at the posting history of your new alt, I am a little surprised you have not had this alt banned as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Not actually a personal attack.

Of course it was. It wasn't even obfuscated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

I don't play alts. I have never played two different people on this forum and I take that as the personal attack you intended it to be.

It depends. If other markets are bigger or growing faster, then being in the other markets might be better.

"If", "might": conditionals. So far, "No." There wouldn't be all this blabber over this little API thing if Apple's dev environment wasn't as attractive as it is.

All these whiners consistently miss the point, that being: Apple is holding the line on its policy in order to ensure the best possible user experience for not only its products but for third-party products which run on them.

This mutual dependency therefore has to be continually policed. Some people bristle over any perceived "control", "lack of freedom", or "unfairness," conveniently ignoring the concept of the necessity of "policy" in order to enjoy any degree of standardness.

Look at it from the other side. those special gestures are what give Apple apps a potential edge. So of course they aren't going to let them go out.

Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard.

It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.

Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard.

It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.

Exactly, Apple can implicity allow use of their patents on their devices. Nothing says you have to go after patent violators or lose your patent (That is trademarks), you can pick and choose. You can choose who you license to, and it could be written in the SDK license that all iphone/ipad apps have a license to use Apple's patented gestures as part of the UI standardization

It's not really clear to me, from reading over the AI article, whether they were using private APIs or not. It does seem clear that there is no support for this in the API, but whether they rolled their own using only their own code and published APIs, or rolled their own using private APIs doesn't seem to be addressed.

Should it matter? If the API to do what they wanted was not available, then writing their own code, using Apple's other published APIs or totally custom code or a 3rd party API would seem to the logical, commonly accept way to get the functionality they wanted. As long as they are not violating the SDK, by using private APIs or otherwise, I don't see what the problem is. if they are in violation, they need to just accept it. This doesn't mean the rule they broke, if they did, is necessarily fair or right, but they cannot claim ignorance in that case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

It would seem in Apple's interest to promote a common gestural interface among iPhone apps, so it's also not entirely clear to me why they would discourage that out of hand. It could be that their are IP issues involved, and that they believe allowing developers to roll their own support for gestures covered under IP protections might weaken potential cases against other platforms. Obviously, if there were a published API, the issue would not be there as developers would then effectively be using Apple's gesture handling.

Exactly. That is what is so puzzling. Apple was always renown for promoting consistency through their ecosystem...forcing inconsistency seems un-Apple-like.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

The bottom line is if Apple has advocated created gestures using published APIs they shouldn't have a problem with what gestures you create or implement. Anything else is simply too much power and stifles innovation going forward.

I could swear that pinch to expand is used on charts in iStockManager and nobody had a problem with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdaddyok

Obviously more to their rejection than "pinch to expand" on a photo app, because I just used that gesture on Photogene, which is not an Apple app. I do agree that Apple should allow all apps to use the gestures.

Could have something to do with this app's connection to Picasa and Google. Who knows.

Just like before, the APIs are probably not ready for primetime, once Apple feels that the APIs are good and ready I'm sure they'll release them.
They may release them in 4.0, I don't believe Apple will keep them "private" for too long.

This was my thinking as well. Apple may not want developers generating code that copies a function it plans to release in the SDK in the future.
Although, Apple could just accept it now, and reject an update later when Apple's code is generally available.

The bottom line is if Apple has advocated created gestures using published APIs they shouldn't have a problem with what gestures you create or implement. Anything else is simply too much power and stifles innovation going forward.

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for copying this from Apple's dev site:

Gesture Recognizers
Gesture recognizers are objects that you attach to views and use to detect common types of gestures. After attaching it to your view, you tell it what action you want performed when the gesture occurs. The gesture recognizer object then tracks the raw events and applies the system-defined heuristics for what the given gesture should be. Prior to gesture recognizers, the process for detecting a gesture involved tracking the raw stream of touch events coming to your view and applying potentially complicated heuristics to determine whether the events represented the given gesture.

UIKit now includes a UIGestureRecognizer class that defines the basic behavior for all gesture recognizers. You can define your own custom gesture recognizer subclasses or use one of the system-supplied subclasses to handle any of the following standard gestures:

Tapping (any number of taps)
Pinching in and out (for zooming)
Panning or dragging
Swiping (in any direction)
Rotating (fingers moving in opposite directions)
Long presses

At what point do the anti-trust laws become relevant then? If they have 50% market share? 60%, 90%?

It all seems a little strange to me.

I'm not aware of any cutoff. I think its a matter of a company being large enough so that its anti-competitive behavior really does hurt consumers. If Palm decided that they would refuse to sell the Pre to any network that sells competing products, Palm would just go out of business. But if Microsoft decided that they would not sell Windows to a PC company that sold other operating systems, then it's the PC company that would go out of business, not Microsoft. In that example, both Microsoft and Palm are (hypothetically) doing exactly the same thing, but it's Microsoft that would get into trouble with the FTC or DOJ, not Palm.

Do me a favour. Patenting a gesture is obscene. Maybe I'll patent the finger and make some money.

I'm offended that any company thinks they can patent the use of a gesture when they advocate multitouch devices. Apple gets gestures but others can just tap tap tap. Who owns the patents on mouse up and mouse dow? They must be the richest people in the world.

Stop giving Apple a pass just because you're a fan boy. I love AAPL too but they are showing and proving that they have and exercise way too much control during the app submission process.

Rude remarks like these, especially from a noobe, are uncalled for. I in no way stated an opinion on the merit of the patent, criticized any party or jumped to any radical conclusions. Where you got 'fan boy' from is a mystery to me. I simply suggested possible issues regarding the circumstances of the rejection.

You know, with all the news about how great the ipad is, and with iphone os 4.0 being announced tomorrow, I was starting to get that feeling like maybe these devices are for me. Money isn't the issue, and clearly they are doing something right....

Then news like this comes out and it all comes back to me.

Screw this bs and screw Apple. Lets see how long they can keep this behavior up once Steve is gone.

Should it matter? If the API to do what they wanted was not available, then writing their own code, using Apple's other published APIs or totally custom code or a 3rd party API would seem to the logical, commonly accept way to get the functionality they wanted. As long as they are not violating the SDK, by using private APIs or otherwise, I don't see what the problem is. if they are in violation, they need to just accept it. This doesn't mean the rule they broke, if they did, is necessarily fair or right, but they cannot claim ignorance in that case.

Well, it matters as to whether they have anything like a valid complaint or not. If they implemented it using private APIs, they don't. If they implemented it using 3rd party APIs, they might not, depending on the nature of the API. If it's implemented entirely via published APIs and their own code, they may.

But, in the absence of information on the exact reason for the rejection, it's hard to say.

It's also possible that is was rejected simply because Apple felt it was too much of a knockoff of the Photos app, which they could justify under duplicates functionality, but might reject because, well, because no one likes to see someone just do a knockoff of their software.

You know, with all the news about how great the ipad is, and with iphone os 4.0 being announced tomorrow, I was starting to get that feeling like maybe these devices are for me. Money isn't the issue, and clearly they are doing something right....

Then news like this comes out and it all comes back to me.

Screw this bs and screw Apple. Lets see how long they can keep this behavior up once Steve is gone.

Is it going to be news each time a developer gets their app rejected, when we have over 100,000 apps on the App Store??

Why are YOU so insulted? Did Apple reject YOUR app? Why should you care? This has no real effect on you, the consumer. If anything, the consumer keeps benefiting from Apple's products. We keep getting great stuff almost yearly.

The reality is that developers are *staying* with Apple, and so are consumers. These piddly rejections here and there amount to next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Developers know that the best platform to develop for bar none continue to be Apple's i-devices. As a developer, if your app is rejected, then fix the damned thing and find another way for it to be competitive before someone else steps in and does what you were't capable of. Apple's ecosystem is a developer's gold mine and there is simply no room for whining.

I dunno, seems like pinch to enlarge (I know, that developer also added "expand" to the list, ought to be as intuitive as Command-C to copy. Apple should be happy just having pinch to enlarge on their platform and not others. Otherwise, how will anyone know how to use it? Pinch to enlarge only in Apple apps, but not others. Yuck!

I dunno, seems like pinch to enlarge (I know, that developer also added "expand" to the list, ought to be as intuitive as Command-C to copy. Apple should be happy just having pinch to enlarge on their platform and not others. Otherwise, how will anyone know how to use it? Pinch to enlarge only in Apple apps, but not others. Yuck!

Sometimes Apple might be a little too quick on the reject button. I bet there are more than a few apps that have been reinstated after originally being rejected. Probably without any explanation for either action.

It's not "Apple" rejecting the app, it's an Apple employee. Clearly some of them are quite reasonable, and some of them are dicks (or certainly make mistakes). That's why, no matter what the reason for rejection, there are always counterexamples of already approved apps.

The problem is really that there is no proper way of escalating such an issue. Sure, you can write to Jobs, and in his infinite wisdom he might decide you should just rename your app, but there is no formal process. You can't argue your side, you can't look at precedents and you can't predict the decisions. That makes Apple an unreliable partner.

It's hard to feel sorry for the developers, though, as the publicity from this story alone will probably make them more money than that feature. As a user (and as a share holder) I'm only afraid it will ultimately keep developers away from the platform...

Well, it matters as to whether they have anything like a valid complaint or not. If they implemented it using private APIs, they don't. If they implemented it using 3rd party APIs, they might not, depending on the nature of the API. If it's implemented entirely via published APIs and their own code, they may.

But, in the absence of information on the exact reason for the rejection, it's hard to say.

maybe. I took this to mean they did not use Apple's private APIs and coded it themselves.

Quote:

Sykora said Apple's application programming interface in the iPhone OS software development kit does not provide a way to do the gesture, so he and Kaneko coded it themselves

Certainly, I am only inferring from this that they mean that then did not use Apple's API, private or published. But it seems to be what they meant, if they said Apple's API did not provide a way to do the gesture they needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

It's also possible that is was rejected simply because Apple felt it was too much of a knockoff of the Photos app, which they could justify under duplicates functionality, but might reject because, well, because no one likes to see someone just do a knockoff of their software.

Possibly. That particular reason gets under my skin. A platform is a platform. Apple should ensure all devs, including themselves, have a level playing field on the platform.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

This dev needs to suck it up and just get over it. Boo f'n Hoo!! They thought they were being smart asses by copying a gesture from one of Apples apps which Apple have kept the API for private. Seriously what were they expecting, a medal?

Devs like this need to spend time making apps and stop pissing and moaning when they get caught out.

It's not "Apple" rejecting the app, it's an Apple employee. Clearly some of them are quite reasonable, and some of them are dicks (or certainly make mistakes). That's why, no matter what the reason for rejection, there are always counterexamples of already approved apps.

The employee is, constructively, Apple. The lack of consistency as you suggest does not make it any less an Apple decision.

Quote:

The problem is really that there is no proper way of escalating such an issue. Sure, you can write to Jobs, and in his infinite wisdom he might decide you should just rename your app, but there is no formal process. You can't argue your side, you can't look at precedents and you can't predict the decisions. That makes Apple an unreliable partner.

There is a formal process, it's just so simple, and so arbitrary, and so heavily tilted in Apple's favour that you may as well lob an app over the fence and await the outcome. This is effectively what happens, right?

Quote:

It's hard to feel sorry for the developers, though, as the publicity from this story alone will probably make them more money than that feature. As a user (and as a share holder) I'm only afraid it will ultimately keep developers away from the platform...

I guess it's the price you pay for developing for the one of the most popular mobile platforms out there. But just because you're playing in someone else's sandbox doesn't make their decisions automatically right. If you develop your own gesture recognition using the APIs properly available to you then you can't really point to an objective reason as to why the app was rejected. The article does suggest the foregoing. There seems to no concrete explanation on Apple's part as to the grounds for rejection.

... I am only inferring from this that they mean that then did not use Apple's API, private or published. But it seems to be what they meant, if they said Apple's API did not provide a way to do the gesture they needed.

The article is completely ambiguous on this point. Obviously, they used some APIs, otherwise they are writing directly to the hardware, which is unlikely to say the least. The question is, exactly which APIs did they use? They seem to have not really answered this question, or the reporting just isn't clear.

If it also stifles competition, it will arouse the interest of the antitrust regulators.

How does it stifle competition if it's protecting a patent? Please explain.

In a previous thread, you were waxing eloquent on sampling statistics; then you went on regarding an FTC ruling; now you are taking on competition, seemingly, in each instance not having a clue, as far as I can tell.